R4 Womens Hour, young women preferring to stay at home?

[WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid]

Hi just wondering if anyone else was listening to Womens Hour today?

There was a really interesting article on younger women choosing not to work.
I was busy (meant to be working) whilst listening so I didn't give it the attention it deserved. I think they were saying that young women are choosing more any more to stay at home with their kids.
Seems they have seen their mums trying to have it all / do it all and decided it's best to stay at home.

Im sure that the lack of well paid part time work and stupidly expensive child care is having an impact. Anyone else hear the broadcast and was hopefully paying attention unlike me

[Chilleman]

leedy your points about unconscious bias are true. It is very powerful. In our house we are in fact very conscious of it though: DH gave up work to look after our DC a couple of years ago. Ever since, he's had comments like "what do you do with yourself now your not working", "a man like you really needs a job, you'll get bored". People who know I work and he doesn't still ask "so what do you do with the kids?" It's inconceivable to them that he could be looking after them!

[leedy]

On a lighter note: www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/banish-daddy-guilt-10-tips-for-frazzled-working-fathers-1.2489957#.Vpdk_IcxAbw.twitter

(also the comments from people who Just Don't Get It...)

[leedy]

And now that I think of it, stuff like it being illegal to discriminate against mothers at work is because previously mothers were discriminated against (eg being fired for getting pregnant), not because we need to "recognize their special role as mothers". It's recognizing them as a discriminated-against class, not a to-be-privileged class.

[leedy]

I'm sorry you don't want to respond to me. I assure you I am commenting entirely in good faith, I'm very interested in this topic, I just don't actually understand many of the points you're making. Of course I agree with the existence of monitoring and anti-discrimination legislation and all that good stuff (as I said upthread, I was discussing improving diversity in hiring in work yesterday) but the stuff I was talking about in terms of changing attitudes towards traditional gender roles isn't something that can necessarily be mandated for.

"Acknowledging global trends in birth spacing" is all well and good, but it doesn't remove the fact that for most of human history and in quite a lot of the world now, women have had very limited choices in terms of whether to have children or not (other than a lot of breastfeeding and hoping for the best, or possibly becoming nuns). Which makes your argument that "mothers want to care for children more than fathers because they chose to take the risk to have them" at the very least only applicable to a tiny percentage of women and certainly not something we could claim is "natural". The idea that women are inherently more suited to and keen on caring for children than men is a LOT older than reliable birth control, and appears in societies where women have no control over their fertility at all.

And I would genuinely like to hear an example of legally mandated "affirmative action for mothers" that doesn't just apply to special provision for mothers of infants. Unless you mean things like it being illegal to discriminate against mothers specifically for being mothers, which is obviously right and good, but doesn't protect eg (as it was the example we mentioned above) the rights of the mother of a ten year old to stay at home with them versus the rights of the child's father just because "they're a mother".

[almondpudding]

Supporting affirmative action for mothers is not the same thing as denying rights in the workplace for fathers or other carers.

Acknowledging global trends in birth spacing is not the same thing as denying the importance of access to abortion.

Believing that human rights goals can be achieved through monitoring and directly addressing equality of outcome is not the same thing as denying the existence of unconscious bias.

I will only engage on MN with someone I believe to be commenting in good faith. I don't think the three examples above suggest you are doing, so I will not be continuing to respond to your posts.

[leedy]

"As for care of ten year olds, yes many governments globally will be aware that as there is a greater amount of care of children of all ages by mothers and as a consequence provide additional workplace assistance to mothers ... This is exempt from rules around sex role stereotyping."

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. Certainly my workplace (which is extremely family friendly) provides extra assistance to new mothers in that we have, eg, a mother's room in which to express milk, etc. but otherwise they provide benefits THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARENTS IF THEY WANT THEM (eg parental leave). Which is entirely appropriate. I would be horrified if they offered special assistance just to mothers of any age child in my work because it would cement the idea in the workplace that fathers are committed to their jobs, mothers need special help and special arrangements.

In terms of things like assistance getting lone parents back into the workplace, again, those are offered to parents, not mothers (even if the majority of lone parents are women).

Also I am genuinely baffled by the "women having control of reproductive choices throughout history". So all the countries where women don't have access to contraception or abortion, well, it's fine, because "birth spacing is commonly practiced". I grew up in Ireland just before the really widespread availability of contraception and (while it was getting rarer) some of my peers were one of nine or ten children. One of DP's classmates was one of twenty. Go back a generation and it's even more common. I'm sure all those women didn't choose to be mothers quite so many times.

And you really didn't understand the thing about unconscious bias/assumptions. Yes, lots of people don't do things because they have been explicitly told not to. But lots of people do them anyway because it wouldn't occur to them that it could be wrong. Like the employer and that solid assumption in their head that women don't come back after maternity leave. Oh, they might not get so far as stating out loud, or even to themselves, but strangely enough they might find lots of other "good" reasons to reject a lot of female candidates of childbearing age. I am almost charmed by your idea that nobody is sexist anymore because they have been told not to by HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY.

[almondpudding]

I was referring to the contemporary situation in the UK Leedy, in terms of pregnancy.

But birth spacing is commonly practiced in societies all over the world where women have control of reproductive choices, and has been throughout history.

There are numerous frameworks that ensure human rights for groups who behave in very different ways and make different choices. It is the basis of thinking around diversity.

And actually yes, people do refrain from doing and saying very sexist, racist and homophobic things because it is wrong and contrary to human rights resolutions, because we are taught that those things are wrong and often illegal throughout education and compulsory training during employment.

As for care of ten year olds, yes many governments globally will be aware that as there is a greater amount of care of children of all ages by mothers and as a consequence provide additional workplace assistance to mothers, including in some cases affirmative action. This is exempt from rules around sex role stereotyping.

[WordGetsAround]

I know the thread had moved on, but I am always surprised about ralk of 'outrageous' childcare costs. Why do people expect such a significant role to be carried out cheaply? Already our childcarers are paid very poorly. Do people really expect this to be subsidised from central government funds?

[leedy]

"I don't want to see the importance of mothers being diminished. I want to see the importance of fathers celebrated."

I totally agree! I am not at all saying that everyone should work full time whether they want to or not, or that many modern workplaces aren't bad for anyone who wants a decent work life balance, I'm saying that it shouldn't be the default that mothers do the bulk of the caring work, fathers do all the other outside the home stuff, or that the assumption that these roles are "natural" and "what men and women really want" shouldn't be questioned.

So it's not that I think we shouldn't value the work mothers do caring for their children, I think we shouldn't value it over the work fathers can do caring for their children. almond mentioned maternity being specially protected - which it totally should be, for mothers of babies, who generally very much do need their mother around in the early days (I took a year off for both kids). But mothers of, say, 10 year olds? Should they have a special protected right and social approval to stay at home because "they're mothers!", more so than the fathers of said 10 year olds?

"Leedy, it is a human rights obligation as a society that we (including employers) do not stereotype by gender and we do not constrain people by our own stereotyped assumptions."

And if you believe this always actually happens, I have a nice bridge you might like to buy. Not to mention the whole point of internalized assumptions and bias is that it's unconscious. So it's not like most people think "I am going to say/do something really sexist even though I know it's WRONG and AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS" (or whatever), they just do it because they can't imagine things being any other way.

I'm not sure if I've really explained myself properly about the SAHD thing - it's not that I think if we somehow forced loads of dads to be stay at home parents then MAGICALLY everyone will rethink traditional gender roles and UTOPIA ENSUES. It's more like, a few more families start doing the non-traditional thing (be it SAHD or both going part time or even just more equally shared parenting tasks), and then maybe their friends or colleagues see them and go "Oh actually, I never really thought of that working, that might work for us too", and then maybe a Radio 4 researcher hears about the growing number of SAHDs in [wherever] and does a programme, and a few more people hear about it, and so on and so forth.

"n answer to your question, I think that mothers (not women in general) are far more likely to want to spend time with children because most mothers have actively chosen to become mothers. Given the risks and difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth, very few mothers just stumble into it unless they really want children in their lives."

Really? Given that for most of human history before widely available contraception, most women did not actively choose to become mothers, they just had children, sometimes whether they liked it or not (and for many women, this is still the case), it'd want to be a fairly recent "natural development". And the assumption that women are natural caregivers is a whole lot older than that.

Personally, I adore my children, I love the time I spend with them, but I don't think I do so any more than their father.

[almondpudding]

Indeed.

The unrealistic expectations of the workplace are damaging family life and contributing to mental health problems.

[WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid]

almond
Again I agree with you. I would love to see a society with more family friendly work available. For everyone.

I'm a bit biased as this would be my personal ideal. I'm not cut out to be a sahm and dh would make a shocking sahd.

There aren't any decent part time jobs available to us where we are so we both work full time.
There's loads of juggling and we are exceptionally lucky to have 4 very hands on grandparents locally.

At the moment I feel like the ideal worker is a constantly available worker. That just doesn't work in most families.

I don't want to see the importance of mothers being diminished. I want to see the importance of fathers celebrated.

[almondpudding]

I think it would be good if more of men's time, wealth, energy and resources went to children. That would definitely benefit women and children.

And of course men who want to be SAHDs and get to do so is great for them.

I do however think there is a narrative in society (not blaming you Leedy) that unless women fundamentally alter the way we relate to children and the time we invest in being with them, we are not entitled to an end to sex stereotyping in any other sphere and indeed we are responsible for the continuation of such stereotyping and other people's sexist assumptions for having the temerity to be mothers who frequently prioritise being with our kids.

And of course this is utter bollocks. Maternity as a social role is protected and the abolition of sex stereotyping is a human right.

Women, including any woman who has or ever will be a SAHM or working mother have the right to education, to work without discrimination in any field, to political participation and representation, to economic security, to be fully included in cultural life and so on.

And I very much dislike the insinuation that unless we give up the huge value we place on being with our kids, we are not entitled to an end to sex stereotyping. We absolutely are entitled to our rights, and are not responsible for the sexist assumptions other people make.

[WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid]

In answer to your question, I think that mothers (not women in general) are far more likely to want to spend time with children because most mothers have actively chosen to become mothers

Hi almond, I know this wasn't addressed to me but I agree with you to a point.

I think that probably more mothers than fathers would want to take the primary carer role. But I think there will be some couples where actually it makes more sense for the man to stay at home.
Eg my brother and sil. He is more keen on starting a family than she is and he earns less. If they did have kids he has said he would be happy to be a sahd.

I know it's just one example but I think it could be good if more men see a staying at home as a good option for men.

[almondpudding]

Leedy, it is a human rights obligation as a society that we (including employers) do not stereotype by gender and we do not constrain people by our own stereotyped assumptions.

That is the case regardless of whether or not there are more SAHDs or whatever.

In answer to your question, I think that mothers (not women in general) are far more likely to want to spend time with children because most mothers have actively chosen to become mothers. Given the risks and difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth, very few mothers just stumble into it unless they really want children in their lives.

The norm of biological mum plus biological dad and their kids under one roof is a minority of families in the UK. I am not sure what the point is of attempting to challenge the norm that mothers want to care for kids while still making the assumption of a two parent family as the norm in society, as that has gone!

Maternity is a specific protected social role. It doesn't benefit women or children to pretend otherwise.

[almondpudding]

Leedy, it is a human rights obligation as a society that we (including employers) do not stereotype by gender and we do not constrain people by our own stereotyped assumptions.

That is the case regardless of whether or not there are more SAHDs or whatever.

In answer to your question, I think that mothers (not women in general) are far more likely to want to spend time with children because most mothers have actively chosen to become mothers. Given the risks and difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth, very few mothers just stumble into it unless they really want children in their lives.

The norm of biological mum plus biological dad and their kids under one roof is a minority of families in the UK. I am not sure what the point is of attempting to challenge the norm that mothers want to care for kids while still making the assumption of a two parent family as the norm in society, as that has gone!

Maternity is a specific protected social role. It doesn't benefit women or children to pretend otherwise.

[BellasBall]

It is one of those things that seems fun until you do it showme. Like the way people get jealous of others at home on JSA. Honestly work is so much more interesting and the time with your children is better. I am doing this for a few months but could not do it forever. There is nothing better than working.

[BellasBall]

I am surprised you think marriage is the first thing to go in dual income households newlife. I would say it was the other way round. I think you are more likely to feel down if you aren't achieving anything yourself. Staying at home full time long term is a big sacrifice to make for someone elses happiness.

[leedy]

"What does any of this actually have to do with making society better for women? "

Well, see the posts above about providing more choice, whether that's in terms of the options that families see as being available to them, or benefits in terms of how employers and potential employers treat men and women.

If people only ever see men doing A and women doing B then they're far less likely to consider that hey, a woman might want to do A or B, how can we help her do what she wants? Rather than just assuming that "women naturally/always want B, don't they, let's just help them do B".

"It seems as if you want to have some kind of 'internalised ideology' where men and women are equally likely to want to make a particular choice. "

What I want is a situation where men and women can make choices and have preferences about how to organize their family life without being constrained by "how it always has been" norms - either in terms of their own expectations or by those of others/society. In that situation, of course a woman might still say "I want to stay at home with children", and that's fine. Obviously it's impossible to live without any internalized assumptions but at least it would be nice if they were questioned occasionally....

I don't believe men are inherently more likely to want to be providers and women are inherently more likely to want to stay at home with children and/or don't really care about work outside the home. Or that women just naturally want "the choice not to work" and men don't. Do you?

[almondpudding]

But Leedy, so what?

What does any of this actually have to do with making society better for women?

It seems as if you want to have some kind of 'internalised ideology' where men and women are equally likely to want to make a particular choice.

Rather than listening to what women say they want and need and attempting to prioritise those issues.

[NewLife4Me]

I didn't want to work post dc either.
I wanted to sah, look after the family and manage the home.
I've enjoyed it and feel I have had it all.

A long and happy marriage, grown up children who are doing fine, younger child doing fine, dh business doing pretty well and most importantly I'm happy with all my free time to come and go as I please.

To me this is having it all, because the last thing I want is career or job.
Somebody else might think it's career and children.

I do find it interesting how many friends have tried marriage, dc and career and of course the first thing to go is marriage unfortunately.

[leedy]

"I think it's more "extra household income" and "existing household income"."

But this still means women's (potential) earning is the "extra", while the man's is somehow the default. Rather than "total potential household income" (which might be less for a while but more in future) and "current household income").

" There must be loads of women who would be happy to work part time in job that pays well and challenges the mind..."

And men also?

Also the fact that your partner's earning potential versus yours was so much greater that you staying at home was a "no brainer" (as is very often the case in hetero couples), isn't that something we should wonder about too?

I'm sorry for kind of harping on like this but I really am interested in the extent to which we all (to varying degrees) internalize ideas like "men earn more than women", "men naturally go for the high paying jobs", "work-life balance is for women/something only women care about", "part time jobs are for women", "women naturally go for caring jobs", "women want to be at home with children", "only women want the choice to stay at home", "women want jobs that fit around school times", "men can't be seen to leave early to pick up kids", etc. etc. etc.

(why yes, I did spend some time in work today talking to one of our recruitment people about diversity in hiring and the relative family-friendliness for both men and women of our office, and why that was)

[BellasBall]

Dh and I have both stayed at home at differing times but in fairness neither of us wanted to do it. We both love children but most people also enjoy their own life.

[Fourormore]

I can't speak for all men but yes, this was a family decision. The next conversation would have been who stays at home but his earning potential made it a no brainer.